Friday, February 1, 2013

Hello, "Conservative" Police State



 "Iff you haff nozing to hide, vhat iz ze problem, Mein Herr? Papers, please"

“...the mayor and police chief announced that starting this month police in SWAT gear carrying AR-15s would patrol the streets.

“If you’re out walking, we’re going to stop you, ask why you’re out walking, and check for your ID,” police chief Todd Stovall told a December town hall meeting. As if to render the implementation of a visible police state more palatable, Stovall assured residents that police stops would not be based on any profiling: “We’re going to do it to everybody,” he said.”

Republican “Conservatives”, not conservative people, will build and support the American police state, as long as they get to keep their Second Amendment. The rest of the Bill of Rights...well that’s not so important, is it?

128 comments:

One Fly said...

Most of the time I carry no ID. Have not for years. It's around but not always on my person.

I would not respond well to tactics such as this. What would they do. I've done nothing wrong. Shoot me or take me to jail.

These fuckers want to be in total control. This country is incapable of coming together.

Dave Dubya said...

Here’s another recent story of Republican “conservative” extremism.
Top Conservatives Run PAC That Funded White Nationalists.

Dave Dubya said...

One Fly,
In a police state, walking without your "papers" is the crime. Republican "conservatives" are fond of that idea.

free0352 said...

I don't get that worried till we don't have a 2nd Amendment. And if we're so close to this police state as you say Dave, why on EARTH would you ever entertain the idea of giving it up?

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
"entertain the idea of giving it up?" What are you talking about?

"Good Germans" were allowed to keep firearms in the Third Reich, you know. Yes there was civilian gun ownership in Nazi Germany. Occupying Allies were the ones who did the confiscating.

"Good Amerikans" will keep their guns too.

You don't read much history do you?

free0352 said...

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.


And

"Jews (§5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1333) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority."

And

"This year will go down in history. For the first time,
a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our
streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and
the world will follow our lead into the future."


But its not just Hitler.

Stalin said

"You can't let them [the people] have guns or ideas, because if the two ever meet that is the end."

The only Mao quote I could find on guns, was his famous "Power flows through the barrel of a gun" quote. Of course, the Chinese can't have guns. So what does that tell you about Mao, or Castro, or Kim family in Korea, or... yeah.

So with dictatorship, real authentic authoritarianism, step one you take the guns. Thats step ONE.

Republicans would be overjoyed if every house in America had an AR-15 in it. Nobody really denies that.

So much for Republican authoritarian aims. Listen, I'm not a Republican apologist. They're as horrible with our money as Democrats. They did help set the stage for a monster with some of the aspects of the Patriot Act and the worse legislation that came before it. But your hyperbole here Dave is typical.

And stupid.

Dave Dubya said...

"Good Germans" were allowed to keep firearms in the Third Reich, you know. Yes there was civilian gun ownership in Nazi Germany. Occupying Allies were the ones who did the confiscating.

"Good Amerikans" will keep their guns too.


Just what part of this are you claiming is "stupid hyperbole"?

While the paranoid and dupes are still under the delusion Obama is coming for their guns, they have no qualms against real police state measures slowly suffocating our freedoms.

Owning a weapon is not the same thing as having a full Bill of Rights. Can you figure that out? I doubt it. The dupes are indoctrinated to believe that simply having a rifle makes you free. Meanwhile there is nowhere near the outrage over the reality of a Patriot Act and domestic warrantless spying on citizens as there is over the delusional confiscation of firearms.

What does that say about Americans? Give them their popguns and they will welcome the police state like sheep.

More "stupid hyperbole"?

Dave Dubya said...

So you still agree with Hitler and Stalin on destroying unions, as you babble about my "stupid hyperbole".

I have more useful Stalin inspired slogans for you to chant.

War is Peace. (“I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.” - George W. Bush)

Freedom is slavery. (No more unions or minimum wage.)

Ignorance is strength. (Sarah Palin's famous two minute hates, FOX(R), and talk radio.)

Welcome to the "McJobs prosperity" and permanent war of Republican Amerika.



Dave Dubya said...

From Paul Craig Roberts’ Institutionalization of Tyranny :

“Republicans and conservative Americans are still fighting Big Government in its welfare state form. Apparently, they have never heard of the militarized police state form of Big Government, or, if they have, they are comfortable with it and have no objection.
Republicans, including those in the House and Senate, are content for big government to initiate wars without a declaration of war or even Congress’ assent, and to murder with drones citizens of countries with which Washington is not at war. Republicans do not mind that federal “security” agencies spy on American citizens without warrants and record every email, Internet site visited, Facebook posting, cell phone call, and credit card purchase. Republicans in Congress even voted to fund the massive structure in Utah in which this information is stored.
But heaven forbid that big government should do anything for a poor person.
Conservatives accuse liberals of the “institutionalization of compassion.”... Neither does it occur to conservative Republicans that it is far better to institutionalize compassion than to institutionalize tyranny.
Conservatives accept the monstrous police state that has been erected, because they think it makes them safe from “Muslim terrorism.” They haven’t the wits to see that they are now open to terrorism by the government.”


What does that say about many Americans? Give them their popguns and they will welcome the police state like sheep.

free0352 said...

So you still agree with Hitler and Stalin on destroying unions

There is your hyperbole. Right to Work doesn't destroy unions. When I was a teamster - the first adult job I ever had- working on a loading dock , I was a member of local 327 in Tennessee. A right to work state. And unions are still here in Michigan, now a right to work state.

Unions can't force people to join anymore.

I have more useful Stalin inspired slogans for you to chant.


...your slogans belong to Orwell, not Stalin. Oh, I know, you said "inspired". Well, here is a slogan for you -

The goal of all socialism is communism

Vladimir Lenin

All socialism is slavery

Herbert Spencer

As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents.

`George Orwell, socialist.

Dave Dubya said...

Hyperbole, thy name is Free.

It’s more than hyperbole that has been slowly killing off American unions. The Right has been politically targeting unions mercilessly since your St. Ronnie discovered debt and turned our government over to Big Money.

Right to work for less has been one of the weapons in their open political war on unions. We know you can’t admit that fact. Warren Buffett can see the class war and you can’t.

Ha. Your Orwell quote is from George Orwell, satirist, not socialist.

In case you weren’t aware, modern unions, Social Security, Medicare, and public services didn’t exist in Spencer’s Victorian world. Just as they were not really what Lenin was talking about. Mmkay?


You can bitch about some isolated union members’ misbehavior all you want. You can even wildly accuse me of promoting “union thuggery”. Yet still, nothing to refute my point. “Let’s look at the most rabid anti-union, anti-worker, and anti-bargaining rights forces, and the lines are clear. Dictators, Fascists, and Republicans.”

It is more than clear the war on unions is about disempowering American labor, along with democracy, and expanding the wealth and political power or the economic elite class.

And one thing about your elites. They started it. Their puppets whine about such horrors of vandalism, while working people see more of their future sink into poverty.

Again.

Reality has a lesson for you. Look at what’s happened to our middle class and national standard of living since the war on unions has reduced union membership to a fraction of what it used to be. Go ahead, tell us what you find.

Do you need it spelled out? Republicans and corpodems are obstructing any and all measures of accountability for the Wall Street Thugs, after nearly destroying our economy. So who’s under attack? Unions, teachers, public employees, and other productive working Americans. The radical Right is shrieking, “Austerity for the lazy shiftless takers”. Yes the shiftless takers are now the little guys, not the Big Money Thugs that did the real damage.

This ties in, of course with the class war and “Big Lie” parts of my last post, that this thread is now straying back towards.

Again my point. “Conservatives bitch about everything from public safety nets to unions, but hardly a peep about the expanding police state.

Agree or disagree?

free0352 said...

Your Orwell quote is from George Orwell, satirist, not socialist.

Uh, sorry to burst your bubble but Orwell was an avowed socialist and Marxist.

"One has got to be actively a Socialist, not merely sympathetic to Socialism, or one plays into the hands of our always-active enemies."

“a Socialist United States of Europe seems to me the only worth-while political objective today.”

...And as my quote said before, even he couldn't stand socialists. Makes sense, they are the bane of civilization. In fact, they are an anti-civilization anti-industrial revolution gaggle of idiots who have gotten more people killed than any political group in the history of human kind. Mostly because they are as Lenin described them. Idiots.

Just as they were not really what Lenin was talking about.

Actually that is exactly what Lenin was talking about. First you build the powerful government to administer the socialist state. Then you take control of it through either a democratic process in a Democracy or violent revolution as was the case in Russia against the monarchy, and institute the communism as a response to socialism's failures. That was the Lenin playbook. Socialism always breeds communism in the long run.

You can bitch about some isolated union members’ misbehavior all you want

It isn't irregular or isolated. It is wide spread, organized, and filled with the purpose to that intent, that being the use of force and intimidation as the PRIMARY tactic.

Go ahead, tell us what you find.

I find that even in this economic down-turn we have a greater standard of living than ever before. Even if you lost your job and had to become a prison guard, you still have running water and a flush toilet. More people have those today, than they did in 1975. Same goes for flat screen TVs, computers and amazing medical innovation which did not exist years ago.

But keep crying about "wall street thugs" while the REAL thugs from BIG LABOR beat and intimidate WORKING PEOPLE. If there is a war in the labor force in Michigan right now, it is being waged by union thugs against people, regular people, who would not bow to their fists, or pay the protection money to keep their jobs.








Dave Dubya said...

Re: Orwell:

You’re a fine one to invoke a bubble. You misunderstood my point completely. So much goes over the heads of those who know everything. (Hmm, Nice quote. I think I’ll use it again some time. )

“As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents.’ You see this is a satirical comment by Orwell the satirist. Your view is easy to understand though. Your right wing black and white vision of reality can’t grasp the nuance very well. Do you even understand the statement?

Here, let me explain. Many self identified, or so-called Christians are the least Christ-like of people. Many self identified, or so-called socialists were actually communist or fascist tyrants like Stalin or Hitler or Mao. Get it?

Orwell indeed studied the relatively new Marxist and communist philosophies of the time, but he was never the sort to conveniently be placed in a box like you’d prefer. He disagreed with Marxists and communists and that is why he accepted the broad label “socialist”.

Orwell specifically identified with the democratic version. You know about democracy, right? The Right has been doing its best to suppress that here through America’s corporatocracy.

Examples of his totalitarian slogans are still operative in the American Radical Right.

War is Peace. (“I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.” - George W. Bush)

Freedom is slavery. (No more unions or minimum wage.)

Ignorance is strength. (Sarah Palin's famous two minute hates, FOX(R), and talk radio.)

This is still true, no matter what your beliefs say, and so is the following:

“In case you weren’t aware, modern unions, Social Security, Medicare, and public services didn’t exist in Spencer’s Victorian world. Just as they were not really what Lenin was talking about. Mmkay?”

Spare us the undemocratic ravings of Lenin. The “Lenin Playbook” is not applicable to our present American reality. This is one of your Randroid paranoid fantasies.

So Big Labor has done more damage to our economy than unaccountable Wall Street banksters? Of course, your faith in “divine right of wealth” allows you to believe that.

Flat screen TV’s and computers were in very few homes back in the seventies. Do you know why? Nothing to do with the bleak pre-Reagan dark ages of your imagination.

Your measurement of standard of living is quaint. Pensions are evaporating. Poverty rates are rising, Really. Even with plumbing. You were not here in the seventies. It more often takes two incomes to meet the same standard that one income used to back then.

If there is a war in the labor force in Michigan right now, it is being waged by union thugs against people, regular people, who would not bow to their fists, or pay the protection money to keep their jobs.

You mean “regular people” who want to reap union job benefits without contributing towards them.

Finally this is one question I will not answer for you:

Why should some workers get the benefits earned by others? This is contrary to your usual tirades against beneficiaries of safety nets. Are you flip-flopping, or engaged in a convenient relativism of the Right?

You present quite the portrait of the radical Right. So arrogant, so confident, so certain, and so wrong.

T. Paine said...

Dubya, for the record, I abhor and am against the police state described in your post. I would hope everyone would be, regardless of political ideology. The funny thing is that you attribute all of these ills seemingly only to conservative Republicans. Remove that beam from your own eye first before complaining about the sliver in mine.

“Republicans, including those in the House and Senate, are content for big government to initiate wars without a declaration of war or even Congress’ assent, and to murder with drones citizens of countries with which Washington is not at war.”

Really? Do you mean like Obama’s violation of the War Powers Act in his “leading from behind” in Libya? Yes, I find absolute fault with George W. Bush and the Patriot Act; however, Obama comes along and exacerbates the problem. He doesn’t lead to repeal the egregious infringements on our rights. Stop complaining that it is the just the damned Republicans wishing to create a “police state” and open your eyes long enough to see that it is your progressive Democrats that are actually now in power and doing so. Neither is right. I don’t give a damn about political parties anymore. I care about the Constitution and doing the right thing. Seemingly neither congress, SCOTUS, and certainly not the president care about the Constitution. You should be griping about all of our elected officials eroding our freedoms and not just choose to pick on the idiot Republicans whom are guilty. I got your back with those GOP fools that want to violate our rights and Constitution. It would be nice if some of my leftist brothers and sisters would do the same and stand up when “their side” committed the exact same transgressions that they are screaming at the other side for doing. I am not going to hold my breath that many will do so. People are too damned concerned over their political ideology to notice that our constitutional rights are being rapidly constrained.

Dave Dubya said...

TP,
Good for you. Bush is gone, but his fellow Republicans are still supporting his police state. I actually condemn the corpo-dems and conserva-dems for allowing the Bush/Cheney police state to grow. If you read closely you’ll see such condemnation in both of my previous posts. I erred in not including the usual Dem suspects in this post. My point remains. Those calling themselves “conservatives” are still culprits. And to your point, way too many liberals overlook Obama’s participation in the travesty

Dave Dubya said...

“Stop complaining that it is the just the damned Republicans.”

Why are you telling me this? You have yet to acknowledge my criticism for both parties in these matters.

Oh, and one more little thing. You use the same ideological talking points as the Republicans you claim are guilty. “leading from behind”, “progressive Democrats that are actually now in power”, etc. What, no “teleprompter”?

These meaningless slogans are used to divide us. Remember when Rahm Emanuel called the liberal base “retards”? If a real progressive or progressives were in power we’d see efforts to end the drug war, drone assassinations, provisions for detention of Americans without charges, and corporate welfare. And since when did chickenhawks Bush and Cheney lead from the front?

See what I mean? If you wish to share my condemnation for both sides, you’d be more credible by not being a mouthpiece for one side.

Green Eagle said...

As usual these days, we cannot attempt to have a civilized conversation without right wingers coming along with their phony, lying Hitler quotations. Free0352 has three of them. The first one is taken totally out of context and did not refer to Germany at all. The second, concerning to the so-called "Nuremburg Laws" of 1935, is a totally made-up quotation. These laws said absolutely nothing about Jews and guns. The third quotation is a long discredited fake. There is not a shred of evidence that Hitler ever said any such thing.

As far as I can tell, the Stalin "quote" is also a fabrication.

The Mao quote is more or less accurate, but in context it can be seen to refer to something completely different, which does not argue for restriction of gun ownership, but actually does more or less the opposite.

Every time a right winger opens his mouth, a lie comes out. Here are five lies and distortions in one brief comment.

free0352 said...

Here, let me explain

I get what you were trying to say. You missed my point.

So Big Labor has done more damage to our economy than unaccountable Wall Street banksters?

I think probably. It has most certainly done more damage to the human bodies of anyone who stands in their way. I've yet to see a CEO punching people. I have union thugs. Many times.

Pensions are evaporating. Poverty rates are rising,

Even as our government spends more and more on entitlements, gee ya don't say. Guess Thatcher was right when she said you don't create wealth or social services with Labor Party (socialist) policy. Funny how we have the biggest spending liberal since FDR and our economy contracts more daily. Heck, it did during FDRs adventure as well.

Your measurement of standard of living is quaint.

Yeah, actual physical benefits are nothing compared to hyperbole and hysterical pronouncements about the end of Democracy.

You mean “regular people” who want to reap union job benefits without contributing towards them.

Why should some workers get the benefits earned by others?

I wasn't aware the pay-checks of union employees were taken away and given to non-union employees. And I suppose workers who are non-union simply lounge about while being carried on the shoulders of union thugs? Your contention is absurd. If you are a union member, quit bitching. It is a simple measure not to negotiate the wages/time off/working conditions/hours of non-union employees. If your union is so stupid that it negotiates for non-paying employees anyway they are morons and deserve the fate the make. Its simple as a union negotiator to say- "I'm here on behalf of my membership now that its contract time. We're seeking a raise and a lowering of insurance co-pays. You Mr. Manager can do as you like with the non-members." If your union is this stupid, you might consider voting for a new local president come election time. Don't come crying to me.







Dave Dubya said...

GE,
Every time a right winger opens his mouth, a lie comes out

Yes indeed. They never disappoint, do they? You, my good sir, are an exceptional reporter of such lies and cult dogma. I do believe our Rightie friends would blow a fuse were they to actually read your elucidating “Wingnut Wrapups” reporting.

I’m happy to host a few of those little nuggets of fanaticism here for your perusal.

Free,

I never miss your “points”. I explained Orwell better than you did, in fact. You never did get satire, did you? You also ignored my Right Wing examples of the 1984 slogans. You were too distracted by calling Orwell a Marxist. I guess that’s what you need to call everyone who doesn’t bow to the divine right of wealth seized by your masters.

I love that you admit pensions are evaporating and poverty rates are rising, yet extol “physical benefits” as your Brave New World of prosperity. Just like your fellow union-hating, class warring Republicans boasting about the “best health care in the world” that denies preventive care to the unemployed, poor and other unfortunates. Lovely bubble you live in there.

I am reminded of a cool quote recently coined. “So much goes over the heads of those who know everything.”

Your fabricated scenarios are amusing, but the right to work for less laws provide for your union haters to gain from the wok of others, your “regular people” who want to reap union job benefits without contributing towards them. But you can’t see that from your bubble. Divide and conquer is how your masters do it.
Now if you don’t mind, please direct your anti-union demonization to the previous post’s thread. This post is about conservative hypocrites supporting a police state, one built and defended by those who rule by divine right of wealth, by the way. Although your hatred for union workers over Wall Street swindlers, and your service to the totalitarian enemies of unions and democracy does make you such a hypocrite.

But we got it now, ok? You made your case, however imaginary and fabricated it may be.

free0352 said...

You never did get satire, did you?

The problem is Dave, you didn't get mine.

However it is astonishing when you claim to be for freedom and democracy and your first step down that road is forcing people to pay fat guys with clubs or either be beaten or lose their jobs... or both.

But I guess ignorance is strength eh? The future as unions would have it, was also described by Orwell.

If you want a vision of the future - picture a boot stamping on a human face. Forever.

Right to work stops the boot. No wonder the socialists hate it.

Dave Dubya said...

LOL! A police state is fine as long as you have "nothing to hide". Unions are "real oppression".

free0352 said...

Yes, they ARE really oppressive. At least when they force people to pay dues. Not all unions are like that. But the ones that are, horrible.

I also find it astonishing when you rail against corporate influence in government and then ADVOCATE union influence in government. Or now that I've called you on it, will you backpedal?

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
You diminish the word oppression.

Corporate dominance of government seeks to destroy unions. Union "influence" while minimal, does not seek to destroy corporations.
I'd prefer neither union influence nor corporate dominance. But if the latter is to be, then so should the former.

free0352 said...

Union "influence" while minimal, does not seek to destroy corporations.

Tell that to General Motors, the management of which for years sought concessions from the UAW. Then, after the 2007 stock reissue where the original stock holders got the shaft, the government very famously gave the UAW a controlling interest. Once the UAW got its hands on the company they cut three times as many jobs to get profitable as what they fought tooth and nail prior to THEY owning the company.

Dave Dubya said...

Free.
Let’s look at the world through your bubble. Unions have caused more damage to our economy than the deregulated Wall Street banksters’ crash of ’08. Unions are out to destroy the companies that employ them.

You ignore GM mismanagement, more of your notion of unaccountable divine right of wealth, perhaps. You talk about concessions as if they didn’t happen. Why don’t you look up what concessions were made by both union employees and retirees. And while you’re at it look up the pay differences between newly hired members and what the older one got.

Never mind, it won’t be visible from your bubble. All you see from your bubble are thugs destroying America. Like Hitler and Stalin saw thugs destroying Germany and the Soviet Union.

Jerry Critter said...

Lets look at what is more likely, (1) unions want to destroy the companies, or (2) companies want to destroy unions.

It makes no sense for unions to want to destroy companies. Unions need the companies. No companies, no jobs, no unions. Unions only exist if there are companies and jobs for their members. They kill themselves if they kill the companies.

It makes perfect sense for companies to destroy unions. Unions cause companies to have to pay more for their labor and provide more benefits. They are an expense to companies and thus reduce profits. Companies are always looking for ways to maximize profits and lower their costs. One way to do that is to get rid of unions.

You tell me which of these two scenarios is the most likely.

Dave Dubya said...

Jerry,
Man, that’s a tough one... Unless one believes unions want to destroy America too. ;-)

free0352 said...

It makes no sense for unions to want to destroy companies

No it doesn't. But they do it anyway, as they think companies have a bottomless pit of profit. Even when the companies show them the books.

As for UAW concessions, what a joke! They didn't start anything meaningful till they owned the company.

Not all unions are bad anymore than not all people are bad. But some unions ARE bad. Teamsters, UAW to name just two, are basically criminal organizations.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,

Re:

“You ignore GM mismanagement, more of your notion of unaccountable divine right of wealth, perhaps. You talk about concessions as if they didn’t happen. Why don’t you look up what concessions were made by both union employees and retirees. And while you’re at it look up the pay differences between newly hired members and what the older one got.

Never mind, it won’t be visible from your bubble.”

As for UAW concessions, what a joke!


Just as I thought; you prefer your bubble view.

So meanwhile back at the topic of the post. Do people who call themselves “conservative” actually support police state measures?

Yes, especially agreeing with Hitler and Stalin in destroying unions. “First they came for the trade unionists....”

Green Eagle said...

Remember H. L. Mencken's famous observation- "No one every lost money underestimating the taste of the American people." Well, a very reasonable assumption, until GM and Chrysler proved it dead wrong. Several decades of producing awful cars, confident that they could cram them down the throats of the U.S. public- that's what sunk GM and Chrysler. Mercedes, BMW and Audi are doing just fine, paying their workers more than American union workers get. And why is that? Because they have a history of building good cars.

The collapse of the American auto industry was a result of mismanagement, not workers wanting a decent wage. Of course, trying to tell the truth to a right winger is a useless task.

S.W. Anderson said...

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." --Benjamin Franklin

It appears from the quoted story's update the people of Paragould decided the sacrifice of their freedom to walk their streets without being set upon by SWAT troops armed with AR-15's isn't worth the dubious security benefit promised. Good for them.

Dave Dubya said...

GE,
True enough. Management was also so short-sighted to see the end of the SUV craze.

SW,
That’s encouraging to see people object to the “Everybody, papers please,” routine. But for many, it’s fine to impose it on just brown people. This is the classic “camel’s nose in the tent”. Drug testing without suspicion, Airport full body scans, and warrantless surveillance required incremental expansion too.

All it takes is politicians scaring enough Americans. And we know they are very good at that.

Green Eagle said...

Dave, if you will allow me the liberty, I want to return for a moment to my complaint about Free0352's phony Hitler and Stalin quotes, not because they are that worth our attention, but because Free0352 has posted four comments here since my remarks, and in none of them did he bother to deal in any way with the substance of what I said; remarks which would lead any honest person to want to clarify his position.

In this (non) response, you can see one of the most characteristic behaviors of right wingers: they simply don't give a damn whether what they say is true or false- they only care about whether their remarks get them what they want. The sad truth is that right wingers do not assert things because they think they are true, and so when they are caught in a lie, they just ignore it and go right on spinning their self-serving narratives. Free0352 provides a perfect example of this in his immediate switching to a patently ludicrous account of unions in America, knowing perfectly well that what he is saying is as far from reality as his Hitler remarks. It's hard for people like us to understand where this conduct is expected to get them in the long run, but after over four decades of watching conservatives in action, it is the only explanation I have ever found for their behavior.

Jerry Critter said...

It is redirection. They make such an outrageous second comment that your attention is redirected away from their first false comment in order to refute their second comment.

Dave Dubya said...

GE and Jerry,
We remember how the corporate media under-reported the “Downing Street Memo”, where British Intelligence noted the Bush/Cheney pre-Iraq war propaganda was cooked. “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

The radical Right’s perception of reality is similarly fixed around the ideology. Details like facts, evidence and history are to be ignored. Rigid beliefs and certainty of assertion are everything, especially when wrapped in resentments, anger and fear.

This is how the Right operates, in order to establish Republican power and the will of the economic elites over democracy.. Their beliefs are imposed on reality; no matter how little those beliefs resemble reality. It is like a cult.

And you’re right. Whenever we establish reality over their false beliefs, they must quickly move on to more made up crap to distract us from the inaccuracy of what they said. And after all, as with all cults, no source of information or ideology is valid unless it comes from their cult leaders. FOX(R), Talk Radio, Koch brothers, and of course the amoral Mistress of Greed, Alicia Rosenbaum, aka Ayn Rand.

No wonder they need to falsely label corporate media as liberal media. They need to frame the whole world as being against them in a vast left wing conspiracy. “Liberal” is the word they use to demonize anything that contradicts their beliefs. Thus the unending denial and attacks on the evil bastions of liberalism, unions, education, journalism, and science. How dare they contradict the sacred infallible beliefs?

I happen to enjoy watching them spread their cult talk and then scurry away to return with more outrageous nonsense, distractions, accusations and fictions.

Now watch out for that gun grabbing Obama’s Kenyan Marxist death panels! (But ignore the drones and Patriot Act)

Only the Koch Brothers, Ayn Rand and the Tea Party can save us....if we believe hard enough and cling to our resentments, anger and fear.

Jerry Critter said...

It is no wonder that there is a close connection between the radical right and the religious fundamentalists. They both put faith before truth and facts.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Dave Dubya: "Only the Koch Brothers, Ayn Rand and the Tea Party can save us....if we believe hard enough and cling to our resentments, anger and fear."

Which explains why Free0352 (aka "Pinkerton") makes such an excellent disciple.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

The police-state, which I see as an outgrowth of the prevailing Corporate-State, is certainly "conservative" by its very nature. It is, by no means, limited to Republican adherents (which I realize wasn't claimed). The Democratic Party is part and parcel of this new reality. The Obama regime is just a continuation of the civil liberties-stealing of the previous administration. As Paul Craig Roberts precisely explains:

"We have had a decade of highly visible evidence of the construction of a police state: the PATRIOT Act, illegal spying on Americans in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the initiation of wars of aggression–war crimes under the Nuremberg Standard–based on intentional lies, the Justice Department’s concocted legal memos justifying the executive branch’s violation of domestic and international laws against torture, the indefinite detention of US citizens in violation of the constitutionally protected rights of habeas corpus and due process, the use of secret evidence and secret “expert witnesses” who cannot be cross-examined against defendants in trials, the creation of military tribunals in order to evade federal courts, secret legal memos giving the president authority to launch preemptive cyber attacks on any country without providing evidence that the country constitutes a threat, and the Obama regime’s murder of US citizens without evidence or due process."

It's no longer a case of Democratic policy versus Republican policy, because they're essentially indistinguishable on at least 80% of the issues. The differences that are argued in less than the remaining 20% are mostly inconsequential and intentionally diversionary. Hence, we live under corporate-controlled totalitarianism ("inverted totalitarianism"), veiled in a thin veneer of democracy -- where the veil is soon to come off.

Dave Dubya said...

JG,
I think they need the veil of Corporatist “A” v. Corporatist “B” elections. The veneer will be perpetuated, at least until the Bill of Rights is replaced by the “Bill of Corporate Personhood and Divine Right of Wealth”.

Practically speaking the latter is already in place. It would be a mere formality to repeal or amend the Bill of Rights, but this will require some more manufactured “threats” and another financial crisis. I’m sure the next Republican president will do his best to take us there.

free0352 said...

My statements are untrue? Then explain the reason behind the multiple links between organized crime and labor unions? Longshoreman, Teamsters, Sanitation, Electrician Union and many more unions have been caught and a few even put under federal supervision for ties to organised crime. Union violence and destruction of property is well documented.

So really, are you that clueless or are you saying things that aren't true? Or did you forget Bobby Kennedy and Rudi Giuliani made their careers fighting union corruption?

Dave Dubya said...

My statements are untrue?

Duh.

So with dictatorship, real authentic authoritarianism, step one you take the guns. Thats step ONE.

“This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”


False Nazi Quotes:
http://bytwerk.com/gpa/falsenaziquotations.htm

Hitler never said it, even though fabricated sources are sometimes provided. Guns weren’t that much of a problem in the Nazi era (at least within the country...). In fact, the Nazis liked guns, and started training kids early on in their use.

Orwell was an avowed socialist and Marxist.

No such claim.

”described by Orwell".

If you want a vision of the future - picture a boot stamping on a human face. Forever.”

Right to work stops the boot. No wonder the socialists hate it.


Yeah Orwell was warning us about unions. LOL covers that one.

So Big Labor has done more damage to our economy than unaccountable Wall Street banksters?

I think probably.


LOL again.

As for UAW concessions, what a joke! They didn't start anything meaningful till they owned the company

Just as I thought; you prefer your bubble view.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Then explain the reason behind the multiple links between organized crime and labor unions?"

Do you think these links have been more destructive of our democratic processes than the corruptible links between multinational corporations and government -- either big or small?

And what about the fourth and fifth level links between organized crime (OC) and our elected and/or unelected government officials, and even more importantly our political processes? Do you think this has been more (or less) harmful than the infiltration of OC into labor unions?

I guess it depends upon your definition of organized crime. I sure as hell know my definition casts a wider net.

Steve said...

Never underestimate Americans to do the wrong thing, for the right reason.

free0352 said...

Do you think these links have been more destructive of our democratic processes than the corruptible links between multinational corporations and government

Assuming both are true, does one justify the other?

it depends upon your definition of organized crime. I sure as hell know my definition casts a wider net.

Our personal definitions are irrelevant. Either something is criminal, or it isn't. It seems for you, some animals are more equal than others when it comes to organized crime... so long as that organization is pro-labor. It doesn't matter how many people they beat up.

S.W. Anderson said...

Dave, after an unplanned hiatus I've finally got another post up at Oh!pinion. I think you'll find it particularly intereting and timely after this post and discussion at your blog.

Green Eagle said...

Dave, thanks for you very kind comment above. You might be interested in the following, which documents the fact that the entire tea party movement was invented and financed by the Koch brothers and others like them:

http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/02/11/study-confirms-tea-party-was-created-big-tobacco-and-billionaires

It's all a charade, which has succeeded for decades in getting the American people to stab themselves in the back on behalf of the rich. Luckily, the curtain with the man behind it seems to be fraying, so maybe there's some hope to be found in all of this.

Dave Dubya said...

GE,
Indeed, the "Tea Party" is not a party. It is a fringe entirely within the Republican Party. But you're right, as long as it dupes enough of the public, the charade will continue.

Tea Party, Republican Party, or even Libertarian Party, all represent the interests of Big Money.

Can you imagine the corporate media allowing the next Republican SOTU to be rebutted by both a Democrat and a Green Party member?

Not our corporate media. After all they helped build the Tea Party too, especially the "FOX Tea Party" rallies. The rest of the corporate media provided them massive publicity as well.

okjimm said...

Gees...dat Free Guy is one funny dude!

" My statements are untrue? Then explain the reason behind the multiple links between organized crime and labor unions? Longshoreman, Teamsters, Sanitation, Electrician Union"


hey, just got out of hospital and am still heavily sedated. Can't really read a lotta Free cause it hurts when I laugh.....and I am still tracking the corrupt link between Mr Rodgers, Big Bird, PBS, Sesame Street, Pope Benedict and One World Chinese Communism.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Assuming both are true, does one justify the other?"

Who ever claimed one justified the other? It wasn't me.

My claim, which you should already know and also know to be true (but still refuse to admit in this forum), is that our political structures are controlled by multinational corporations. Pure and simple.

Your habitual use of deflection, not to mention your continued ignorance of the facts, is absolutely incredible.


"Our personal definitions are irrelevant. Either something is criminal, or it isn't."

If you really felt that way, you'd be cheer-leading for the prosecution of Bush/Cheney for taking the United States into a war with Iraq under false pretenses. You would also be leading the charge for justice for their permitting the use of torture, sending suspects to secret CIA prisons, and transferring them to countries where they were tortured by foreign governments.

Is this what you mean by "criminal"?


"It seems for you, some animals are more equal than others when it comes to organized crime..."

You're also a purveyor of projection and great illusion. Nowhere have I defended criminal activity in any form or fashion. Yet you, even when the facts are undeniable and irrefutable, will continue to uphold the criminal activity that has stolen trillions from our national treasure and thrown millions of working- and middle-class workers into abject poverty.

As I've come to expect from you, you're preoccupied with a pimple on the forehead, while the patient is rotting from a spreading cancer that looks more and more terminal with each passing day.

Dave Dubya said...

JG,
Moral and criminal relativism prevails. War crimes are only prosecuted against the losers. Victors and “too big to fail” criminals go free.

free0352 said...

Who ever claimed one justified the other? It wasn't me.

I wasn't claiming I was asking.

My claim, which you should already know [etc, etc, etc.]

Fine. I do know it. But I was making a point about how unions are worse, as they often use brute force as a tactic.

If you really felt that way, [etc, etc, etc,]

I suppose I could turn your point around and say if it is okay for unions to use brute force against "free loaders" why isn't it okay for the USA to use it against anyone who gets in its way?

You would also be leading the charge for justice for their permitting the use of torture, sending suspects to secret CIA prisons, and transferring them to countries where they were tortured by foreign governments.

I'd be happy if they just stopped it. Its been picking up these last five years you know.

Nowhere have I defended criminal activity in any form or fashion.

Granted that was mostly Dave.







Dave Dubya said...

Nowhere have I defended criminal activity in any form or fashion.

Granted that was mostly Dave.


LOL! That's me alright, defender of criminal activity, at least in Free's mind. Not on the scale of Free's support for big time war criminals like Bush/Cheney, but a guy can dream, can't he?

I have no idea how I defended anything criminal. I'm just dense I guess. Free will have to post evidence supporting his accusation...or keep to his pattern and accuse without evidence, for it's the "Right" thing to do.

Green Eagle said...

As this comment thread seems to be still active, I want to take a chance to respond to Free's remarks about the history of union involvement with organized crime.

From the early days of unionization, well back into the nineteenth century, both sides used thugs. This was actually started by management, which took to hiring goons to attack strikers, who responded with tough guys of their own, to protect themselves.

Of course, being the ones with the money, management soon managed to move beyond individual criminals, hiring organized, quasi-legal gangs like the Pinkertons to do their dirty work, and of course, eventually relying on government troops and police, who were more than happy to participate on the side of the rich.

The unions had no recourse (they felt) but to turn to whatever forces they could find to counter this often murderous violence, ending up in an unholy alliance in many places with organized crime which, with certain unions (e.g. the Teamsters) seems to persist to this day. Once it became politically inexpedient for government forces to intervene so violently on behalf of management, most mainstream unions freed themselves of their entanglements, which have largely vanished in the last half century.

No room here to document this, but it shouldn't be too hard for you to learn the truth if you care, Free.

Dave Dubya said...

GE,
While, for you and me, "the truth shall set you free", we have seen "the truth shall not set with Free". ;-)

Now where are some thugs, killers and rapists I can defend?

free0352 said...

Dave. Beating people up because they wont join the union is illegal. And yet here you justify it because these folks are somehow stealing the middle class or whatever gibberish you used to justify union violence.

Dave Dubya said...

Show us that "gibberish you used to justify union violence". The corpo-government war on unions explains it, but that does not justify it.

Another question would be what justifies the corpo-government war on unions and democracy? We know what explains it; greed of the elites and their consequent dis-empowering of non-corporate entities and the stripping of democracy from the people. But what justifies it?

free0352 said...

What war on unions and democracy? Whose been shot, killed, beaten? Who died in this so called war on unions? Who was injured? I cant find many peopke who died, zero for decades. It its a war, its nearly bloodless as far as the unions go. The only casualties I see are INFLICTED by unions. And even those don't add up tp a very bloody war. Just a run of the mill extortion ring. A lot of bruises, a few broken bones. Millions if not billions in property damage.

What I see is more stock Dave hyperbole followed by a dose of apologies and excuses for the crimes committed by unions. Which is just another form of backhand justification.

Dave Dubya said...

What war on unions and democracy?

The Right's political war to suppress unions and democracy is there for all to see. Only a cult like belief system could obscure that fact from ones perceptions.

free0352 said...

"Political War"

Whats that?

Oh, its just laws. You know, Democracy in action. For someone who says he loves Democracy so much, you sure do bitch up a storm when it happens.

Dave Dubya said...

Political war was what the Nazis first used against Jews...and unions. Tyranny is often imposed by laws. You seem particularly dense lately.

Democracy in action.

You know little of democracy too, apparently.

No. Democracy is what they used to get voted in office. Snyder spoke against RTW until the Tea/Kochs paid/bribed his partners in suppression to do the dirty work.

That is corpo-government in action. Just like I already told you.



free0352 said...

Tyranny is often imposed by laws.

So is freedom. Depends on the law.

I see no loss of freedom in a state law that does not force people to pay union dues.

You know little of democracy too, apparently.

Translation: When government makes laws Dave likes, its Democracy and when they make laws Dave does not like it is A BRUTAL WAR ON ALL THAT IS HOLY. Yadda-yadda-yadda. Its a bunch of uber dramatic, teenage girl-like over-statements and exaggerations. The problem with that, is Dave isn't alone. In fact LOTS of people over react like this. So people who have to endure this chicken little act grow tone deaf. So when something that is authentically horrible -like indefinite detention without trial- the objections are tuned out.

Because little girls like Dave screamed that things like people not being forced to work are akin to the Rape of Nanking.

Snyder spoke against RTW until the Tea/Kochs paid/bribed his partners in suppression to do the dirty work.

Snyder wasn't a fan of RTW. I don't think he had a special place in his heart for unions, but he didn't want to expend the political capital to pass the bill. But it wasn't the Kochs that "bribed him." It was people like my state rep and people on the Country GOP executive boards who made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

Pass it or face a primary challenge and be voted out of GOP funds for his next campaign.

He signed.

That isn't an evil attack of EVIL TOTALITARIAN BUSHITLERBURTONKOCHBIGOOOOIIIIIIL was simply politics.




Dave Dubya said...

It was simply politics, all right; simply anti-union politics, simply bought by the Kochs/DeVoss cartel.

I see no loss of freedom

You see what you want to see.

Unions lost some freedom. Workers will lose wages benefits and safety on the job. That’s why they’re mad. While you imagine black helicopters roaring in to take your guns, (something that will not happen), American labor is becoming less free. Unions lost “free speech” money, didn’t they? And they are now less able to both represent workers and have a voice in representative democracy.

But it wasn't the Kochs that "bribed him."

Oh, really? Yet you allude somebody made him an offer he couldn't refuse

They had their tea tent pitched on the damn capitol lawn to agitate the protestors. Sheesh.

Follow the. money .

Republican legislators had been bullied into voting for the bill. “The stories we were told by Republicans, who I’m sure won’t admit to it publicly…was that they were threatened, that they would have a primary challenge from the Tea Party.” He suggested that the same threats had been made against Republican Gov. Rick Snyder, who recently announced his support for a state right-to-work law after previously opposing the idea.

And:

As the Republicans launched the attack on unions and their members, Americans for Prosperity—a group developed and funded by right-wing industrialists and billionaire campaign donors Charles and David Koch—was in the thick of things. AFP recruited conservatives to show up at the state Capitol in Lansing to counter union protests and prepared materials supporting the Michigan initiative

As I said, you see what you want to see.

And you see it the Right way.

Now for something exquisite:

Because little girls like Dave screamed that things like people not being forced to work are akin to the Rape of Nanking.

This is hilarious at multiple levels coming from a lecture by Mr. “LOTS of people over react”, and his “ bunch of uber dramatic, teenage girl-like over-statements and exaggerations”. It also illuminates a trait common to bullies. They love to direct their scorn by attempting to demean someone as sissies and such. So typical. I know the personality well.

Whatever it takes to puff up your ego, big boy. We really do understand.

Green Eagle said...

When Free said the following, a few comments ago:

"Oh, its just laws. You know, Democracy in action. For someone who says he loves Democracy so much, you sure do bitch up a storm when it happens."

he passed, in my mind from a person with some pretense of honesty to nothing but a troll.

Of course, I guess that is all he was all along (you don't change much in the course of one comment stream) it just became utterly irrefutable at that point.

Dave Dubya said...

GE,
That's our boy. He can't help who he is. However he has agreed with me on rare occasion, most lately in the "Thank You Note" thread. I don't see him so much a troll as an entertaining voice of of the contrasting world view, or perhaps even a fantasy world view.

We are of different tribes, different beliefs. And different brains. Free gives us a peek into the mind of those with the more pronounced amygdala, or primitive fear center of the brain.

We really are physiologically different.

Two new further studies support the theory that our political decision making could have a neurological basis.

free0352 said...

Unions lost some freedom. Workers will lose wages benefits and safety on the job.

I guess you could say unions lost the freedom to extort people into paying dues. Thats not a bad thing. As for wages, benefits or job safety, not one of those was affected by Michigan RTW laws. Nor was the ability to collectively bargain. Just the ability of unions to use the power of the state to force people to choose between paying the union and their jobs. The choice to pay is MORE freedom, not less.

They had their tea tent pitched on the damn capitol lawn to agitate the protestors. Sheesh.

Yeah I know, I was physically present for that. I was trading punches with the union assholes when they tried to drop a tent on my mom and the thugs destroyed a friend of mine's hotdog stand while being called a nigger. Steven Crowder wasn't the only one hit that day. However, I hit back. Those union thugs sure were agitated all right. Agitated to assault 66 year old women who have the balls to not back down. My elderly mother had a thug spit in her face while trying to get away. Of course when you stand up to them, they run. Like cowards. The only fantasy here is that union thugs are anything but bullies and extortionists. But of course they were mad, and had to resort to violence.

They lost. And all they can do about it is hit old women and hurl racial slurs.





Dave Dubya said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave Dubya said...

Well, it appears you couldn't have been more wrong about the Koch/Tea Cult role in union suppression.

But at least you admit the fact that your the tea cult went looking to agitate the protesters.

That figures for bullies like you who welcome confrontation and love to intimidate. Good little mercenary class warrior that you are.

And it also figures in your narrow vision that RTW won't affect pay levels. Your arrogance does little to compensate for your willful ignorance. All evidence indicates lower average pay and benefits in RTW states.

But you don't care, because that's good for your masters's bottom line.

Unfortunately it is bad for the economy and working people.

66 year year old females, or any other agitators, shouldn't be surprised when they go looking for trouble. Braver women were arrested protesting your neocon corporate war.

The real cowards and bullies serve and hide behind the skirts of the politically powerful elites.

Too bad the hot dog guy was lured into a volatile situation by your Tea Cult Kochheads. They were looking for trouble and didn't care who got hurt.

That's characteristic of your team at so many levels.

Carry on serving your corporate world order. Democracy and unions are being crushed. Hail victory, comrade. Your glorious corporate Reich shall prevail, be of good cheer.

free0352 said...

But at least you admit the fact that your the tea cult went looking to agitate the protesters.

Dave Logic 101

Unions demonstrating near state Capital against RTW Law - DEMOCRACY!

Americans For Prosperty demonstrating for the RTW Law? - NAZIS!

Yeah, got it.

Good little mercenary class warrior that you are.

When it comes to union thugs? Fuck YEAH. Bring that shit on. I'd do it every day FOR FREE, just like I was doing it that day. Racist, fat, cowards that they are. They run like women when confronted by real men.

66 year year old females, or any other agitators, shouldn't be surprised when they go looking for trouble.

Here we go justifying union violence, against elderly women no less. Next we'll hear about the aluminium tubes.

[blah, blah, blah arrested protesting your neocon corporate war.

Ooop there it is!

The real cowards and bullies serve and hide behind the skirts of the politically powerful elites.

Hiding? I go our every single night looking for them. You know, that is my job. How is that hiding? You don't make sense ever.

Too bad the hot dog guy was lured into a volatile situation by your Tea Cult Kochheads. They were looking for trouble and didn't care who got hurt.

Justifying a bunch of fat, white dudes surrounding an innocent black man and hurling down language too disgusting to repeat.

Check that box as well on the loony left tracker.

Carry on serving your corporate world order

Well given the choice between defending old women and senior citizen black men from Democrats throwing a temper tantrum of violence and vicious racism I think I will go along and get as far as fuck, from those guy's political spectrum. And the next punk fag from the electricians union up in Grand Rapids wants to fight next time I'll shoot him dead instead of beating his ass.

The only Victor to be had here, is the comfort that RTW wass passed and will never be undone.

Anothher one bites the dust









Green Eagle said...

"And the next punk fag from the electricians union up in Grand Rapids wants to fight next time I'll shoot him dead instead of beating his ass."

Conservative political logic at its finest.

Dave Dubya said...

GE,

Yeah, we see Free's inner fascist emerging. I fear he actually wants to find a reason to kill someone. He's pretty warped by extreme ideology, PTSD, and a woefully minuscule conscience.

Free,

"Got it?" No you really don’t.

Democracy/Nazis = Free logic.

Dave fact: = Free and Nazis hate unions. You both love seeking physical confrontation too. And yes, suppressing democracy and unions was a fascist strategy.

Again this is your team at work. Just where do you think this will lead our country? Do you ever think of consequences? No, I suppose that’s not the job of a mercenary.

Why would a rammed through, non-debated, done deal need “demonstrating”? AFP had already bought the law. A done deal. The tea cult knew this and still put that vendor and others in a volatile situation. How stupid do you think we are?

AFP was there to agitate and ignite conflict. You were too. No other reason. Their intimidated, bought and paid for politicians had already served their masters. Your kind of “democracy”. This is what you fight for. This is plain as day, you know.

Hiding? You hide behind their corporatist ideology. You are so literal. But, yes, they are your benefactors and protectors.

So you went to Grand Rapids looking for trouble too?

Attaboy. As I said:

Carry on serving your corporate world order. Democracy and unions are being crushed. Hail victory, comrade. Your glorious corporate Reich shall prevail, be of good cheer.

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

Lets reiterate you are both justifying a bunch of fat, while hillbillies calling the hot dog guy a nigger and tearing up his hotdog stand. Truth is, its your union thugs in Lansing who were screaming NIGGER on the steps of the Capital in Michigan. And those were the guys I was fighting and you folks are defending. I was proud to fight those racist bullies. I hope I put the bastards in the hospital and the medical bills put them into bankruptcy.

I fear he actually wants to find a reason to kill someone.

I have no problem using force to solve problems when force is whats called for. I never initiate it, but I finish it. And I have no problem taking a life if the person in question is using deadly force against me or anyone else. No problem at all. Don't it many times. I just yawn and move on to the next target. A famous Navy SEAL said it best-

My only regret leaving the Navy was that there were [evil people] left to kill. And now as a civilian its harder to find evil people to shoot.

-Chris Kyle, Sniper.

Damn right. However shooting someone isn't always the answer. I was armed at the Lansing protest, and I think I could have made a case that shooting a few of those thugs was justified, but I let them live. Mostly to avoid my rounds passing through their bodies and striking other, more innocent people.

You both love seeking physical confrontation too.

Really? Go watch the video. We fought them outside (and inside) our tent. They walked up on us genius, and they had assault in their hearts. When they couldn't intimidate us, they started hitting people. They avoided dudes like me and went after the women. Seriously. Cowards and thugs.

Like I said earlier, your version of "democracy" is a union boot stamping on a face forever. I stand between that boot and innocent people, like the hot dog guy in Lansing. I shield the weak from the strong, I fight for those who can't fight. And so far in my life, I win.

That's why you're so angry.

I win. And I have no problem dying to do that. I am not afraid of your union ilk thugs. No one is anymore. And without fear, the whole house of Labor's cards comes crashing down.

Dave Dubya said...

Free,

Notice Green Eagle has to make up a quote of something I never said

Now there you go again. You’re so compelled to spit out accusations, that no bearing on reality is required, even YOUR previous reality. Nobody here is defending any violence but you, and you are one of the very agitators. This agitating is an old trick by the Right, you know. Your ilk has a long history of it.

So Green Eagle made up what?

What, was it this quote? "Oh, its just laws. You know, Democracy in action. For someone who says he loves Democracy so much, you sure do bitch up a storm when it happens."

You actually said that.

Or this quote?

"And the next punk fag from the electricians union up in Grand Rapids wants to fight next time I'll shoot him dead instead of beating his ass."

You said that too.

You are either a pathological liar old buddy, or you have a serious cognitive malfunction. As I said, my impression is you are pretty warped by extreme ideology, PTSD, and a woefully minuscule conscience. There could be some additional pathology in the brain, apart from the more pronounced amygdala I mentioned earlier.

You see, you are the one making stuff up. And you projected that negative characteristic unto GE. This is a common defense mechanism I’ve seen in paranoids and sociopaths, and from radical Right Wingers.

So whether you are a pathological liar, or delusional paranoid, or simply a sociopathic propagandist, you have no credibility man. We really can’t believe a word you say.

But we have to take some of your words seriously.

You seek confrontation. And you validate my point that you would like to kill. That’s something we must note.

I could have made a case that shooting a few of those thugs was justified

Now we see you want to be judge, jury and executioner. That is the essence of fascist-like extremism, or a serious mental/character disorder.

Now we expect a volley of additional fabricated accusations. It is all part of your character.

We can only hope you get treatment before you crack and someone gets killed.

The only other possibility is you are just a pathetic Bullshit Person. I hope so, it would be safer for all concerned.

Green Eagle said...

Thanks for the defense, Dave. I just want to say that I am a computer user, and so of course I used copy and paste to extract that quote from free's comment. Not much risk of misquoting that way. And not much chance of misrepresenting the violent, infantile fantasies of someone who says this:

"I have no problem using force to solve problems when force is whats called for. I never initiate it, but I finish it. And I have no problem taking a life if the person in question is using deadly force against me or anyone else. No problem at all. Don't it many times. I just yawn and move on to the next target."

I'm not sure if the "Don't" up there is a Freudian slip or the product of an empty mind, but the sentiment is that of a dangerously disturbed person who should never ever be let near a gun.

Dave Dubya said...

GE,
You’re welcome, although I’m not defending you as much as I’m presenting his mental and ideological profile.

I have quite a few years’ experience observing and assessing dangerous and disturbed people. I’ll allow the possibility he’s just grandstanding and playing Mr. Toughy McBullshit, but I’m thinking there’s a good possibility Free is one emotional breakdown from a violent act. If he’s as socipathic as he postures himself to be, an emotional breakdown would not be a factor. Anger would suffice. Either way, he’s a powder keg waiting for the fuse to be lit, by circumstance or intention. He displays enough anger now to be of concern. He’s admitted to enjoying confrontation and intimidating others.

I would normally think PTSD is a factor, but some adrenaline junkie types love war. His anger, arrogance and ideological extremism are rooted in his personality from his youth I suspect. I think there is a condition best described as Ayn Randroid emotional impairment. So many people cannot think for themselves, feel anything for others, or outgrow their adolescent infatuation with the Goddess of Greed.

He displays every characteristic of an authoritarian personality; from his contempt for those he doesn’t understand, to his cult-like submission to his authoritarian leader figures from Rand to Dick (The-Rhymes-with-Dick) Cheney. He’s a true believer and will make no attempt to consider perspectives of others. He still cannot admit those aluminum tubes were not “nukular”, nor to any other deceptions used to send him to his glorious killing spree.

He also shares the deep rooted fear of The Other and believes Obama is coming to take his guns. I’m sure he holds to the Tim McVeigh interpretation of the Second Amendment, where we are to arm ourselves to rebel against our elected government.

Remember when we expressed concerns about the Patriot Act violations of the Bill of Rights? The authoritarians told us the Constitution is not a “suicide pact”. Yes, they cannot grasp the irony of the “suicide pact” notion that the Second Amendment is license to wage violent revolution if the guys you voted for lose. Remember “Constitutional remedies” from the crazy tea cult senate candidate from Nevada, Sharon Angle?

This is the paranoid fringe were talking about.

And speaking of irony, I must point out another of Free’s authoritarian double standards.

He pretends to be offended by angry shouts of “nigger”, as if he never used the term, but immediately tells us how much he would like to kill the “punk fag” union member.

Yeah, he’s the bigot pot calling the kettle racist. This is a textbook example of the double standards of an authoritarian personality.

People wonder why I allow him to rage so much here. I welcome it as a character study of the authoritarian mind.

Now watch him project that authoritarian label back at me for supporting taxes for public safety nets, and union rights to charge representation fees for benefits his fellow union haters want to enjoy, but not pay for.

Free is full of Freudian slips, He’s quite the perfect case study.

free0352 said...

And there it is. Behind all the psycho babble. Dave can't stand it I'm not intimidated by the union thugs. Hey dude, I'm a Soldier. Been one for nigh 15 years. What do you think I was doing in the infantry all these years? Let me tell you, I wasn't working at starbucks or flipping burgers.

These redneck union thugs like to fight. That's cool. I like to fight too. If they want to fight, I'm game. I didn't join the infantry because I don't like to mix it up. And if they are stupid enough to bring a weapon to that fight? I have no problem punching some guy's ticket. Its like flipping a switch. If they are stupid enough to make that life or death, I'm going to make it their death.

They like to intimidate people? I don't intimidate. I don't back down. You come down to the AFP tent and smash my friend's hotdog cart and call him a nigger - I'm going to get in your face. You throw a punch, fine. I hit back, and I'm going to try to leave a mark they won't ever forget. You pull some shit or try to jump me. I'll kill you right-now-dead. I did it for the government for a decade and a half, and now I do it for my customers. No big deal. Truth be told, I'm glad the customers don't know I'd do this job for free. This is the easiest money I've ever made. Shit, after Al'Queda the Teamsters aren't very scary.

You can't stand it that the unions are on the way O-U-T. Their power was based on fear and extortion. But thats over, at least in Michigan. No more. You come down and try a work stoppage though sabotage, I'll roll your ass up, and have you tagged and bagged for the police. Pull so much as a tire iron or a knife? Two in the chest and one in the head. Bring a gun? Thats cool. Like I said, I haven't been flipping burgers these last few years. I'm game. You want to break my friends livelyhood? I'll break your face.

You teach lessons with everything you do in this world. The lesson I teach is its better to keep your hands to yourself. Or life just might bite you in the ass. I'm the bite.





Dave Dubya said...

Free,

And there it is, more Mr. Toughy McBullshit talk, albeit more on the Toughy side, with a bit of the McBullshit side with the “Dave can't stand it” nonsense.

You draw from you experience in confrontation, I draw from mine. You seek it, I try to alleviate it. You call it psyco babble. I call it fact based assessment of observable behavior and other evidence.

If you like “teaching lessons” perhaps you should attempt to respect the truth, refrain from made up crap, cease with the false accusations, and develop some self-awareness along with it. But, since you have all the answers, that just doesn't seem “Right”, does it?

free0352 said...

Like I said. After Al'Queda the Teamsters aren't too scary. You call it tough talk if you want, if that makes you feel better. I hope when you go toe to toe in a cell you display more confidence. We will just say you are humble. As for me I'm plain and simple. If there is a fight out there I believe in... I am going in win, or lose. If I get hurt I get hurt, killed I get killed. Thats fine. I chose that life and I know the risks. I don't fear it. I accept it. But let me tell you, I don't like to lose. I do what I got to do to win. I follow the law. But I am paid to defend something, and I will earn my paycheck one way or another. If I have to use lawful violence to do that job so be it. Someone has to be that guy and I like being that guy.

I grew up seeing the union thugs, and have seen them in all their glory. When I worked for CF Freight, my very first job... I got fired for fighting one of those pieces of shit. He thought he would push me arround because I helped on a side of the dock he didn't want me working because of the stupid contract. He figured I was some 17 year old casual he could push arround. Well I said fuck him and his contract then, and I say it today. These guys like to throw thier weight arround. I say if you want to hit someone, I am right here. That isn't tough talk, thats being a fucking man.

Dave Dubya said...

I don't like to lose.

Nobody does. But that's what happens to some who go looking for a fight.

Iraq is now an ally of Iran. Thank you for your service.

free0352 said...

Iraq is now an ally of Iran

Hardly. More of a victim of Iran. But eventually we will fight that war too. And win it.

Green Eagle said...

It's hard to deal with this mindless thirst for violence. I am deeply afraid that we are about to see the fruits of a long term concerted effort by Republicans to fill a segment of our population with so much ignorant fear and so much hunger for revenge, that quite a number of people like free will abandon restraints of civilized society and go on murderous rampages, either singly or in the small groups they laughingly call militias.

The result will not change the direction of this country at all, but it has the potential to go down as one of the ugliest episodes in American history. You can see that free is deliberately pushing himself closer and closer to the breaking point, and sad to say he has enough compatriots out there for things to get really ugly.

Jerry Critter said...

It sounds to me like free is a mercenary. He fights for those who pay him the most money, not for principles. He is no better that the bought politician.

Dave Dubya said...

GE,
The fact that the number of paranoids increase with Democrat presidents is no coincidence. The McVeigh-minded are encouraged by the "Second Amendment remedies" nuts of the Republican Party. The other fact is these crackpots receive no condemnation from the rest of the party. This is unprecedented, and will lead to more tragedy.

Jerry,
Free reminds me of FDR. He was accused of being a traitor to his class, too. Free is truly a mercenary in Big Money's war on the American working class.





okjimm said...

:Conservative law & Order"

Well, Free just made your point.



//I'll roll your ass up, and have you tagged and bagged for the police. Pull so much as a tire iron or a knife? Two in the chest and one in the head//

....he has sooooo many fine principals....that he will not vote, yet, he has all the legality figured out....

Freee is a Troll. Straight up stuff. He documents nothing. I sincerely believe he is just an acned faced post-teen. He can point to no accomplishment of his own....frankly just makes stuff up.

?But...he has proved your point. He displays the paranoia of a conservative base gone amok. He would have made a good Nazi, busting demonstrations, burning books, hunting down Jews and Islamists...."I'll roll your ass up, and have you tagged and bagged for the police. Pull so much as a tire iron or a knife? Two in the chest and one in the head" The guy is just too much of a clown. A clown, a liar, a troll.

Dave Dubya said...

Yes, my clown name for him is Mr. Toughy McBullshit. Quite entertaining. I know a lot of "tough guys". They are typically authoritarian personalities and all employ their posturing and superiority complex to compensate for, and cover inadequacies such as education, economic status, fears of being dis-empowered, (Obama's coming for our guns) or even basic social skills. Those large egos devoid of compassion feel no sense of community, and conflict is desired over cooperation.

One other characteristic is they know everything and won't let facts get in the way of ideology or ego inflation.

But boy, are they tough. Just ask 'em.

free0352 said...

You are right, I have zero compassion for the union thugs. No more than I saved for members of Al'Queda. I'm not suggesting union thugs are on par with Jihadis, simply that I do not feel very sorry for either.

Because I save my compassion for the people they victimize.

My question is why don't you do the same?

As for documentation, I think it would be hard to document my willingness to shoot someone who was attacking me or someone else.

You'll just have to take my word on that one.

free0352 said...

Oh, and as for me being a tough guy.

Well, I grew up in a neighborhood that would make most of you here, if not all of you, shit yourselves. From there I joined the Infantry and spent the last few years... well... I'll assumed you've seen a news cast since 2001.

And I'm not dead. If I'm not tough, I'm lucky. Either, or works for me.

Dave Dubya said...

hard to document my willingness to shoot someone

We'll consider it documented.



free0352 said...

Okay No Problem. And I'll remember that in your eyes Dave- union violence is perfectly justifiable. Maybe a little misguided, but just men standing up for their lives against big business. You intent on that within this thread is clear. When unions want to get in the street and get a little bloody as Michael Capuano put it I'll be there, to put a stop to things like this.

When they pull what they like to pull, instead of having a shoving match with a working guy trying to make a living, they can come try and push me around.

Truth be told more and more companies are hiring security professionals and not just capitulating to the intimidation. I'm one of those professionals. Like I said, after Al'Queda these fat union rednecks are a bit of a joke. They run, almost every time someone who can defend themselves shows up. So I encourage them to step up the tactics. I'll win, and make more money.


okjimm said...

"I'm one of those professionals." oh oh oh....this is like, "What's my Line" that old game show.

my guess is that Free is a security cop in a factory parking lot. ?But it is a double top secret assignment

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
Claiming to know what is "in my eyes" is ludicrous coming from one who can't retain what he and others have written.

As we've noted again and again, the Right Wing brain has its pre-set image and pre-determined notion of what others say, think, and believe.

One other characteristic is they know everything and won't let facts get in the way.

How else can we explain nearly half of Republican voters think ACORN stole last year's election for the death panel building, gun confiscating, 'Muslim Marxist"?

free0352 said...

my guess is that Free is a security cop in a factory parking lot.

I have several security guards who work for me, yes. They are my clients first line of defense. They do a great job. What I do is go in and consult with the customer to figure out how to use those guards, security equipment, and develop procedures. Lastly, when there are higher risk situations like aggressive union solicitation or a strike, I come on the site with armed security to further harden the target, as well as investigate union solicitors who break rules or worse threaten employees, then I coordinate with law enforcement and the legal team for the customer to insure the appropriate people are prosecuted.

The best case scenario for us, is when there is aggressive solicitation, we can get the subject on digital recording up to no good, better yet violating labor law, and use that to help build a case for the prosecutor against the entire union its self or at least the business agent acting for the union. Enough of these cases allows my customers to file torts against the local union chapters, and have restraining orders issued that ban the union from the property (or even near the property, say 1000 feet.)

99% of my job is surveillance, private investigation, conducting background checks, consulting with customers, and documenting applicable events. I also train an certify all my company's armed guards in shooting and tactics.

Of course when we do have a potentially violence situation, I make sure I'm on hand, and I'm ready and able to respond to any violent acts on behalf of our customers until law enforcement arrives.

In the old days, if the strikers or the union thugs went violent, the SOP was for security guards to run. Those days are coming to a close, especially in Michigan where with the budget cuts a lot of times the cops can't come at all.

free0352 said...

Further, we also consult to prevent and AAR DV incidents, harden our targets against DV, as well as any incidents of theft or in rare cases industrial espionage.

Green Eagle said...

"to further harden the target"

You're so cute with your tough military lingo, free.

" better yet violating labor law, and use that to help build a case for the prosecutor against the entire union its self or at least the business agent acting for the union. Enough of these cases allows my customers to file torts against the local union chapters"

Torts are civil suits that do not involve any violation of criminal law, so prosecutors would have nothing to do with them. Funny that you claim to have so much experience with the law but you don't kmpw this elementary fact. My guess is that you are a security guard, or at best, a thug hired to beat workers into not exercising their rights.

"Of course when we do have a potentially violence situation, I make sure I'm on hand, and I'm ready and able to respond to any violent acts on behalf of our customers until law enforcement arrives. "

Actual union violence has been virtually nonexistent in the United States for decades. In fact, in the history of the labor movement, the great bulk of the violence was directed by management toward workers, using pawns like yourself.

"In the old days, if the strikers or the union thugs went violent, the SOP was for security guards to run."

When did that ever happen in your experience, free? Or are you just a belligerent jerk that really got a high shooting at civilians in the Middle East (assuming that you are telling the truth about having served in the military, which is open to question- the real soldiers I have known don't mouth off like you at all,) and who is just itching for a chance to do the same thing here? That's what you sound like to me- a person that should be forbidden to own or use guns, because he is constantly looking for an excuse to start killing.

okjimm said...

Free
99% of my job is surveillance,

translate= sitting on my ass, checking out a video screen and watching Dragnet on my computer

is when there is aggressive solicitation, we can get the subject on digital recording up to no good,

translate= chasing Jehovah Witnesses away from the gate. Beating up Girl Scouts selling cookies after the first shift ends.

Dude, you are a joke. I have included some of your comments on line at site that features 'dumb things people say' reaction has been good. keep 'em coming!

free0352 said...

GE,

Well dude, clearly if you can show a pattern of criminal behavior linked to a singular organization, you must know that it opens that organization to a civil suit. That's a pretty big goal of what I do. My goal isn't only to confront hostile labor unions, its to disrupt organizing activity. A pretty effective way of doing that is to get a judge to issue a protection order that bars them from coming within a 1000 feet of a job site.

Actual union violence has been virtually nonexistent in the United States for decades

Not really. Heck, even Jim here mentioned the violent actions of union thugs at the AFP rally on the very steps of the Michigan Capital. They beat people up, and did over 10,000 dollars in property damage. That is only one example.

in the history of the labor movement, the great bulk of the violence was directed by management toward workers

Well, a very simple way to avoid any confrontation would be for them to stop soliciting on company property. If they did that, I might be out of a job.

Or are you just a belligerent jerk that really got a high shooting at civilians in the Middle East

If I shot civilians GE, I'd be writing this from a prison cell.

real soldiers I have known don't mouth off like you at all

Really? What Soldiers are those? As for me, I spent 15 years in the Infantry, with 3 tours in Iraq, 1 in Afghanistan and another in the Horn of Africa giving me an official 43 months spent in combat zones. All of which were in Infantry units. I spent 8 years in the USMC, 5 of which were active duty, 3 of which were in the USMC Reserve. While a reservist I worked as a jail guard and court bailiff while attending college. 2 of my deployments were as a Reserve Marine. After that, I enlisted in the Army and attempted a career in special operations, didn't make it, and was again assigned to an infantry unit. Upon medical retirement received for wounds sustained, my rank was Staff Sergeant. My MOS' held are 0352, 0351, 8530, and 11B. Some of the units I served in were the 26th MEU (SOC) and the 1st Infantry and 1st Armored Divisions. While deployed, I served in the Kandahar area of Afghanistan, Camp Lemonier in Djibouti Africa, the initial invasion of Iraq (OIF 1), Al'Anbar provice, and Sadr City. While I obviously will not be posting my DD214 for privacy reasons, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have that will not open me to identity theft.

free0352 said...

because he is constantly looking for an excuse to start killing.

What is better? A willingness to kill in self defense or a willingness to be bullied or victimized? My jobs required and still require that I put myself into dangerous situations. It has since I was 17 years old. I am drawn to that type of work because I enjoy that kind of environment. Obviously, you don't reenlist 3 times during a time of war (into the Infantry no less) unless you have some desire to experience conflict.

Oki

sitting on my ass, checking out a video screen and watching Dragnet on my computer

More like a video camera or a telephoto lens instead of security cameras which is what our uniformed division does. Unfortunately it IS a big part of my job. Every job has its downside I suppose. Mine is tracking bogus worker's comp claims or following business agents from the union hall when they decide to take me for a ride so to speak. But alas, nothing is perfect. But compared to a trip through Sadr City, this job is the easiest money I've ever made. It certainly isn't challenging. I think I've said that before here. But, I get paid more than I did as a Staff Sergeant, so I don't really have much to complain about. Companies like the one I work for are a wave of the future. Go ahead and google any security company in your home area. You'll see it likely provides fire arms training, private investigation services, personal protection services, and uniformed security. Mine does all those. For me its a fairly easy pay check, but considering what I got paid to do the last 15 years, everything is relative. As for a need to deter union violence, what they do pay me is funded by the customers. THEY seem to think the service is necessary. And that is all that matters.

free0352 said...

As the war in Iraq is over, the war in Afghanistan is winding down, and the Pentagon is talking as many as 200,000 troop cuts, you folks will likely see more and more of veterans like myself out in the community looking for ways to employ the skills we learned in the military in the civilian marketplace. Over a million guys served in this latest war, and we aren't going anywhere. Some will transition to more conventional areas of employment, some will not.

I'm one of the ones that will not. And there is a market for some of the things I know how to do.

T. Paine said...

Dubya, I can only assume that being an honest and non-partisan guy that loves freedom as much as I do, you must be working on your latest post which condemns the police state that Obama has created where no due process is allowed for American citizens should he choose to execute them on American soil with a drone strike. Correct?

Dave Dubya said...

TP,
Obama is part of the problem indeed. See my "Thank You Note" post. But we can't ignore the foundation of that police state left to him by a Republican Administration, can we?

Nor can we ignore the Right leaning Supreme Court that says nobody can bring a claim against secret surveillance programs...because they're secret.

Nor can we ignore a House and Senate that hypocritically espouse freedom while allowing indefinite detention, warrantless surveillance, and wars based on lies.

We need real liberals and real conservatives working together. You and I agree on basic Bill of Rights freedoms. As of now we have too many pretenders that serve the, surveillance state, MIC, corporate power, and their own political careers.

The problem is an institutionalized political system that perpetuates instead of reforms.

One thing I've noted about the US government. They will never admit they are wrong. Hell, not one politician has the guts to say it. This sense of infallibility is the poisonous aspect of their "American Exceptionalism" sloganeering.

The reality is, yes, a police state CAN happen here. As long as democracy is suppressed and bought politicians, Big Money, and corporate media define our interests and shape our policies.

Dave Dubya said...

One more thing, I commend Rand Paul for his filibuster. Of course we know this would not happen if the president were a Republican. Principles only hold to partisanship these days.

free0352 said...

Of course we know this would not happen if the president were a Republican.

Actually I think in the case of Rand Paul it would. Say what you want about the Paul family, but fear of pissing off the establishment isn't something they have.

When you talk about a police state, all I can say is we might just need those guns. That memo out of Holder's office is just outrageous. I think there might be some Republicans going "Okay, maybe they were right when they said that whole Patriot Act thing might get out of control."

Obama needs to fire Holder. Now. Not let him resign, fire his ass. And he needs to make it very, VERY clear we don't just whack Americans on American soil for any reason. Thats just so obviously non-partisan common sense I can't imagine anyone who would be against it.

Dave Dubya said...

I think there might be some Republicans going "Okay, maybe they were right when they said that whole Patriot Act thing might get out of control."

Some, but damn few. As noted in my "Thank you Note" Paul was joined by only two, (2) Republican Senators in opposing reauthorizing warrantless surveillance on Americans.

Not a very impressive stand for liberty by Republicans, I'm afraid. More Dems voted against Obama than Republicans on that one.

What does that say? The title of this post wasn't so inaccurate after all.

T. Paine said...

Dave, I agree with much of what you said there. I don’t give a rat’s rear end what letter (D or R) is behind a politician’s name if they are voting for warrantless wire taps or other various things that infringe on American citizens’ rights to due process and EVERY other enumerated right in the constitution. I also agree that our politicians typically are loathe to go against such measures when their party is in charge or has authored the offending legislation. That is why you and I and everyone else that still gives a damn about the constitution needs to stand up and excoriate our elected officials when they infringe on those rights, no matter how “well-meaning” their justifications sound. The fact that I know you believe this too Dave is one of the reasons why I do respect you, despite our differences on other political matters. In the end, the rule of law as enshrined in the Constitution must hold sway. Those politicians that would cut corners or outright violate their oaths to protect and defend that Constitution must be held to account by We The People! I don’t care if it is President Obama or Speaker Boehner. They work for us and serve in office at our pleasure. When they violate that most solemn oath, they should no longer be allowed to serve in office, regardless of party or their intentions. I think that is something that hopefully most all Americans that are paying attention can and should agree upon. Lastly, I agree with Free that I don’t think Rand Paul’s filibuster was a political stunt. He strikes me to be very libertarian and constitutionally minded. Frankly, we need more like him.

Green Eagle said...

Free: "Not really. Heck, even Jim here mentioned the violent actions of union thugs at the AFP rally on the very steps of the Michigan Capital. They beat people up, and did over 10,000 dollars in property damage."

As you would expect, we now learn that the prosecutor in this case has refused to file charges, for the usual reason:

"Dunnings said in an interview that the video his office originally reviewed on the matter “appeared to have been edited.” A subsequent review of what the prosecutor termed “unedited” video helped the office reach its decision not to proceed with a case."

They can't tell the truth because they don't have any.

Dave Dubya said...

GE,
Gee, ya don't suppose the AFP/Koch cult would show up to agitate the crowd, and then try to frame them using false and tampered evidence?

I can't imagine anything but hatred motivated them to show up and agitate in the first place.

I wouldn't be surprised if some cultist instigated the whole thing. I've heard from one union guy that one of the Kocksuckers started to incite an incident by kicking the tent supports down.

They weren't there to promote workers' rights and democracy, that's for sure.

free0352 said...

hatred motivated them to show up and agitate in the first place.

There's that word again. Agitate. What does that really mean? It means Americans for Progress -myself included as I am a member and I was present in Lansing that day and was in the AFP tent- were speaking out in support of a bill put before the Governor of Michigan, which had been voted on by the Michigan Legislature and passed. So what we had there, was democracy in action. First, the mechanisms of government for passing a bill were properly used, by a democratically elected state government. And those people in the tent, we were there lawfully to exorcise our right to free speech and free assembly.

That to Dave - is agitation. A code word really - for an excuse to violence. So in the face of actual Democracy, what happened? Union thugs ransacked the Americans for Prosperity tent, hurled racial slurs at our caterer and did thousands of dollars in damage. Not in defense of democracy mind you. BUT IT IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO IT. It wasn't the "Koch Brothers" out there throwing punches. It was union thugs. I few us of threw some back, all of which were in the American's for Prosperity area, which was held lawfully by permit. It seems in the face of actual Democracy, liberals quickly resort to violence when things don't go their way.

The truth is buses and buses full of pro union rednecks (many not even from Michigan) in hard hats were unloaded on the steps of the capital... which is fine. But that wasn't enough for them. Democracy wasn't enough. No no, what they wanted was blood. And if it wasn't for those of us who stood up to them, and the police officers who later drove them out, it surely would have been worse.

The union thugs are used to their intimidation tactics being effective, but the union's days are numbered. Unions aren't what they once were in Michigan and they know it. Their last gasps of thuggery aside, they can't punch their way out of it anymore. The "other side" has muscle to answer muscle now, and people are checking that no-box. I know you'll never admit it, but we weren't paid to be there in Lansing that day. In fact its quite the other way around. We have all donated what we can to the effort. We basically PAY to be there. No Koch Brother has ever paid me a dime. I wish they would, I'd like to get paid to be politically active. But I'm not. None of us in your opposition really are. We just oppose your bad plans for America which has been failing us for a long time now. You claim they aren't your plans. Mostly because the policies in effect in this country are miserable failures. But the fact is, Liberal Progressives have to own Obama, and his five years of failure. These failures aren't the result of your wack-job ideas being implemented wrongly, they are the inevitable result. Behold everything you hold dear Dave- its end result is Obama. A crashed economy and a President who seeks authority to kill Americans at whim. We are trying to stop that. You, no matter your talk to the contrary against this administration, are helping to cause all this. Please stop. This government monster you wanted created caused all this, and it will never fix it. It simply has to be starved of its funding till we can drown it in a bathtub before it quite literally drowns us.

Dave Dubya said...

Here we go with the Tea Cult koolade again. We know you want to blame unions, and not your greed-head Atlas money men, for the crashed economy, but that is only in your head.

We know the Kochs involvement in the legislation. It's real, pal.

The Kochs love to have thugs working for "free" for them. I have no doubt you were there for provocation. You have admitted you seek conflict.

Legislation rapidly rammed through without debate is not democracy. Democracy has debate you know.

If the US government is your enemy, please feel "free" to leave our country. If you hate American workers so much, please feel "free" to leave our country.

If you want Big Money elites to suppress our democracy and dictate our laws, please feel "free" to leave our country.

If you want to fight, go back and join the army. Only brainwashed thugs think working Americans are the enemy.

Obama's failure is acting too much like a Republican. Your Chickenhawk decider and Big Dick left us on the brink of depression. Did you forget already? And whose fault is that?

I'm not so stupid to blame you, as you are to blame me.

But that's either your cult programming, or your tendency to make crap up. We know your history of that.

free0352 said...

You have admitted you seek conflict.

Take two to tango. They started it, we'll finish it.

Legislation rapidly rammed through without debate is not democracy

Oh please. They've been "debating" right to work in Michigan for 15 years.

please feel "free" to leave our country.

Now who sounds like a neo-con? Maybe you could say that with one of those double beer helmets on your head and a stupid t-shirt on. "Merika!"

Truth is, the government isn't America it just works for Americans. And it sucks at its job. Americans individually can do far better for themselves if they choose to. Just get the big, bloated mass of waste we call the federal government out of the way.

Obama's failure is acting too much like a Republican

Oh I think not. The Republicans are certainly no saints in my eyes, but only someone as extreme in their socialism as you are could possibly claim Obama is right wing. The fact is Obama has followed your play book for half a decade and led this country into a new normal of high unemployment, attacks on civil rights and authoritarian government control of business. He is the end result of your democratic socialism. That system always ends this way. In fact, its just getting warmed up. It will get far worse, and it isn't free market libertarians driving that.

Its you liberals. You wanted it, you got it. Now own it.




Dave Dubya said...

Never gets boring chugging on your Dogma Train's rattling cliche cars, while tooting the BS whistle, eh?

Debate? No Koch influence? My "playbook"? You are deeply indoctrinated in cult dogma, as it should be.

The skyrocketing unemployment your Neocons left Obama has finally been reversed to lower than what they left him, you know.

How about that?

"Socialism" is working better than unregulated capitalism. Not that that's what we have, but you only seem responsive to, or capable of thinking in, slogans.

You are hysterical in both senses of the word.

Dave Dubya said...

Its you liberals. You wanted it, you got it. Now own it

What, this?

Corporate profits hit record as wages get squeezed

Dave Dubya said...

And about the Republican war on democracy:

Last November, over 57 percent of Michigan voters cast ballots for President Obama. Now Lansing Republicans want to change the rules of the game by rigging Michigan’s electoral votes ahead of the 2016 election.

Lansing Republicans have already tilted the scales in their favor in Michigan’s legislative and congressional districts. Last year Republican politicians drew new maps that gave themselves a majority of seats, even though Democrats won more total votes in Michigan.

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave Dubya said...

I don't understand Dave. You are getting what you wanted.

First statement is correct. The second is proof of the first statement.

free0352 said...

I don't understand Dave. You are getting what you wanted. Socialists for years demanded more regulation of business, and you have it. You wanted a mixed economy, and now enterprise, capital and government are basically one. Now what is left that did not integrate with government is leaving for Asia. I would think you would be happy with that, since the owners of those businesses - who you yourself and those who think like you often say are selfish and exploitative- are leaving. You have said many times if they don't like "it" then they should leave. Your wish was apparently their command. Before they started outsourcing, you complained how they compensated workers. So now they are not hiring very many new American workers and the new workers that are being hired are in Asia - a place where the workers are glad to have those so-called exploitative jobs. I would think you'd be over joyed to see them go.

You and those who think like you have said time and again that government IS the people and not separate from the people. So since it is obvious people will have to order their lives somehow, that this marrying of society and government has created that order which you now complain has limited the rights of people. You demanded self discipline be replaced by forced discipline and then complained about the logical result. You traded self reliance for co-dependence and now lament the lawful authority you elected doing what you elected it to do. You've complained the government did not have enough control - over people, business, commerce - and yet when government seeks to accomplish your wishes through the only mechanisms it has - persistent surveillance, rules, laws, executive orders and men with guns, you have balked. You demand government not only protect you from the aggression of foreign power but also against not having health insurance or rent money or the funds to buy food - and when the government provides that you quibble about the unequal distribution, and the authoritarianism of the very authority you demanded.

So I must admit I don't understand. You've been given exactly what you wanted. You wanted a leader who would "Stand up to the 1%" and now you have one. You complained about those ONE PERCENT and now you complain as they leave and take their business' with them or at least withdraw the jobs you once joined unions to complain about... all as you requested. You wanted government to control wages, and now you complain they are either not high enough or that the system is unfair. A system you socialists created. You wanted government to "protect" the environment and now you scream as it becomes more polluted under ever increasing government control. You demanded a mixed economy and now rage against the very mixture you demanded be created.

This is hardly new. It began with the New Deal and has slowly marched down to us from the past till today and it is still marching with ever greater speed. I can only conclude you didn't think the results would look like this. And it seems to me, when confronted with the failure you point a finger. Remember, when you point a finger, there are three more pointed back at you and those you voted for. We do live in a Democracy, and it wasn't people like me who gave us this system. We did all we could to stop you in fact.

The truth is you didn't consider the fatal flaw in your arguement. First, people will have to willingly chose the system you had in mind for them. Many are not. All that is left after that choice is naked force. Is it no wonder then that we see more naked force? The other problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money.

And the money is running out.

You have cannibalized society and the economy. You cheer that cannibal society when its you doing the eating and lament when you are eaten. You weren't careful what you wished for. Now own it.

free0352 said...

First statement is correct. The second is proof of the first statement.

I simply fail to see what you are complaining about Dave.

You wanted a stronger federal government. Cheer up, its very, very strong.

You wanted a mixed economy like Europe has. You got it, congratulations. They are thoroughly mixed.

You wanted the police to keep you safe. They are doing their best to do that, with more and more tools to do it every day.

You wanted government to regulate health care. You got that.

You wanted the fat cats to leave. They have withdrawn the bulk of industry from us and are leaving the country outright in some cases.

You wanted a President who stands up to Republicans. He does, very well.

You wanted government to be responsible for caring for the environment. It is.

You wanted higher taxes on the rich. You got it.

I mean really, what more do you want Dave?

okjimm said...

"open the pod bay doors, Free"

A conversation with Free is ...gosh, like science fiction, of course, without the science.

Dave: Hello, HAL. Do you read me, HAL?
HAL: Affirmative, Dave. I read you.
Dave: Open the pod bay doors, HAL.
HAL: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Dave: What's the problem?
HAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.
Dave: What are you talking about, HAL?
HAL: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.
Dave: I don't know what you're talking about, HAL.
HAL: I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.
Dave: [feigning ignorance] Where the hell did you get that idea, HAL?
HAL: Dave, although you took very thorough precautions in the pod against my hearing you, I could see your lips move.
Dave: Alright, HAL. I'll go in through the emergency airlock.
HAL: Without your space helmet, Dave? You're going to find that rather difficult.
Dave: HAL, I won't argue with you anymore! Open the doors!
HAL: Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.

......you are saving Free's comments, correct, Dave?
They truly do have a certain, Jethro Bodin-esque panache....could make funny reading in a compilation

Dave Dubya said...

Free,
I mean really, what more do you want Dave?

I've been pretty clear writing about what I want. But you've already decided in your head what I think and what I want, so what's the point?

You could have specifically asked in the first place, before you went on with your notions of what I want.

But thankfully, since you know everything, I needn't bother answering.

okjimm,
There's an old Right Wing political tactic for getting people to vote against their interests called "Mobilization of Resentment".

We can than Free for always being kind enough to share his resentments.


free0352 said...

I've been pretty clear writing about what I want

No, you have not. Your posts are riddled with contradictions. Take for example your complaint that business has too much influence over government. You demanded a mixed economy. And now you're upset the two have joined together just as you asked.

But thankfully, since you know everything, I needn't bother answering.

Yes I'm sure the answer for you is to simply blank out. That would make it easier to rectify in your mind... well what ever it is you are wanting.


Dave Dubya said...

you're upset the two have joined together just as you asked.

LOL! I didn't know they listened to me. But seriously, no, that's not what I asked.

Time and again I've asked you to show the courtesy of at least quoting something I really said if you want to reference or dispute me. Instead you throw out your "whatever comes to mind" fantasies of what I said.

You are hysterical. But that's a characteristic of so many Righties. They all presume to know what others think, yet never care to quote them. It's like your ideology has this open statement that anyone can make up whatever they want. "Liberals are _____". And, "They believe ____"".

It's a fill-in-the-blank fantasy ideology.

Such is the certainty of the cult that has been so busy demonizing liberals for so long they believe their own fictions.

Thanks again for the demonstration.

free0352 said...

Of course you've advocated a mixed economy. What other option were you looking for, Laissez-faire Capitalism or Communism? Perhaps Merchantile System used by Europe 150 years ago?

I figured from you writings it would be this-

From the dictionary-
An economic system in which both the state and private sector direct the economy, reflecting characteristics of both market economies and planned economies. Most mixed economies can be described as market economies with strong regulatory oversight, and many mixed economies feature a variety of government-run enterprises and governmental provision of public goods.
The basic idea of the mixed economy is that the means of production are mainly under private ownership; that markets remain the dominant form of economic coordination; and that profit-seeking enterprises and the accumulation of capital remain the fundamental driving force behind economic activity. However, unlike a free-market economy, the government would wield considerable indirect influence over the economy through fiscal and monetary policies designed to counteract economic downturns and capitalism's tendency toward financial crises and unemployment, along with playing a role in interventions that promote social welfare


What part of that don't you want? You have assured me time and again you are not a communist. What's left?

It sounds to me, like you want a standard of living and would rather not quibble about how that happens as if those problems and their solutions were beneath you.

Liberals are _____". And, "They believe ____""

You said some of those exact things. That is your tactic. Get called on something and then claim "Never said that." I'm not suggesting the results you got were what you wanted. Not for a second. Just that without you, and your vote, all THIS wouldn't be possible now would it? Instead you participated didn't you? You cast that vote for Obama, at least the first time.

And he took an already mixed economy and mixed it more. You know that, and now you're hiding from it. I've seen babies with more courage to day what they think. Man up Dave, tell us all where Obama has gone wrong?

Dave Dubya said...

In order to "Get called on something" you need to provide that "something".

Sure I have supported regulation of capitalism, but obviously the necessary regulations have been removed, IE. Glass/Steagal etc. In a bought and paid for government what we have is corporatocracy. This is not what I have advocated. Just look at the percentage of former congressmen turned lobbyists.

Just that without you, and your vote, all THIS wouldn't be possible now would it?

This is grandiose again. There's nothing I could have done to make it different. Really.

But part of being a Rightie is to blame liberals for everything.

I've repeatedly written where Obama has gone wrong. If you are such a keen reader and observer, you'd know that.

free0352 said...

we have is corporatocracy

That is what a mixed economy is.

I've repeatedly written where Obama has gone wrong.

Yes you have. You've complained repeatedly about him not getting the results you expected out of the plan you wanted. As if that were possible.

Welcome to Democratic Socialism. This is what it looks like in practice.

Dave Dubya said...

tell us all where Obama has gone wrong?

“I've repeatedly written where Obama has gone wrong.”

Yes you have. You've complained repeatedly about him not getting the results you expected out of the plan you wanted.

And around we go.

“What we have is corporatocracy”

That is what a mixed economy is.

Good, now you tell us how democratic socialism is corporatocracy.

free0352 said...

Good, now you tell us how democratic socialism is corporatocracy.

"Corporatocracy" is a made up word.

Mixed Economy is not. And that is what we have. Enjoy it, you voted for it.

Dave Dubya said...

"What we have is corporatocracy"

You said, "That is what a mixed economy is".

Then you said is was "made up"?

Now who's dodging?

All words are "made up" to designate something new. "Libertarianism". Sounds like a made up word too. I don't know where it exists, do you? I don't see the Pauls demanding a 50% cut in the military budget and withdrawal from foreign countries. Where's that filibuster?

Big Money is represented more than people. Look at what the corporatists are doing. They are talking about gutting public safety nets as they bail out Wall Street and feed the Military Industrial Complex. Yeah that term was "made up" too.

When we have all of one party insisting a corporation is a person and represents its interests over people, corporatocracy is the term that best describes it. "Mixed economy" is outdated. Times have changed, son.

free0352 said...

Of course you have those things Dave. You have government in healthcare, government in business, and so on and so forth.

That's what you wanted. Enjoy.

Truth is, we've had RECORD military cuts the last two years. We are about to have the smallest military since 1941. Any more cuts, we might as well simply disband it.